Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 12
Application No. 08/810,442
busses 55 and 56. However, these keys must be entered in
encrypted form onto these busses. Thus, even if an attacker
learns the keys, that is insufficient.” (Spec. at 24.) The
paragraphs fail to mention, let alone describe, checking a key on
a bus to determine whether the key is encrypted before the key
can be accepted. Absent such a description, we find that the
disclosure of the application fails to reasonably convey to the
artisan that the appellant had possession at the time of the
invention the later claimed subject matter. Therefore, we affirm
the rejection of claim 10 as lacking an adequate written
description.
IV. Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections
of Claims 1-3, 8 and 10
Claims that are not argued separately stand or fall
together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 1983)(citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67
(CCPA 1979)). When the patentability of a dependent claim is not
argued separately, in particular, the claim stands or falls with
the claim from which it depends. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citing In re Sernaker,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007